Category Archives: Patentability

Method of manufacturing claims ineligible under § 101 since “the mechanism for achieving the desired result” involving a natural law “are not actually claimed”

American Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC, et al. Docket No. 2018-1763 NEWMAN, TARANTO, STOLL October 3, 2019 Brief Summary: DC holding that AAM’s “method for manufacturing” claims are patent ineligible under § 101 affirmed (e.g., “the mechanism … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Section 101 (see also Patentability), Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Method of treatment claims patent ineligible under 101 for being “focused on screening for a natural law” (“the invention does not improve treatment…by taking advantage of the body’s natural process”)

INO Therapeutics LLC, et al. v. Praxair Distribution Inc., et al. Docket No. 2018-1019 DYK, CHEN, STOLL August 27, 2019 Non-precedential Brief Summary: DC finding that “method of treating patients” claims ineligible under section 101 affirmed as the claims are … Continue reading

Posted in Claim Construction, Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC decision that wireless communication claims are patent eligible under section 101 reversed

The Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Techtronic Industries Co., et al. (“TTI”) Docket No. 2018-2103, -2228 LOURIE, O’MALLEY, CHEN August 21, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding of no invalidity under section 101 reversed; anticipation finding affirmed. Summary: TTI appealed DC grant … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

DC finding of personal jurisdiction over foreign entities and finding genetic testing claims ineligible under 101 affirmed

Genetic Vet. Sciences, Inc. (“PPG”) v. Laboklin GmbH & Co., KG, The University of Berlin Docket No. 2018-2056 WALLACH, HUGHES, STOLL August 9, 2019 Brief Summary: DC finding of personal jurisdiction over foreign university and its foreign licensee affirmed; finding … Continue reading

Posted in Jurisdiction, Patentability, Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Federal Circuit denies Athena’s petition for rehearing of finding that its claims relating to a correlation between antibodies to a protein (“MuSK”) and neurological disorders are invalid under § 101.

Athena Diagnostics, Inc. et al. v. Mayo Collaborative Services, LLC Docket No. 2017-2508 NEWMAN (D), LOURIE, STOLL February 6, 2019 (Petition for rehearing denied July 3, 2019) Update (July 3, 2019): Athena’s petition for rehearing regarding the invalidation under § … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability | Leave a comment

DC’s motion to dismiss and attorney fees award vacated and remanded as Cellspin’s amended complaint alleged an inventive concept and issued patents are presumed valid and patent eligible

Cellspin Soft, Inc. v. Fitbit, Inc. et al. (Moov, Nike, Fossil, Canon, GoPro, Panasonic, and JKI); Docket Nos. 2018-1817-26, -2178-84 (June 25, 2019) Brief Summary:  DC grant of Fitbit’s motion to dismiss for patent ineligibility under section 101 and the … Continue reading

Posted in Patent Eligibility (101), Patentability, Software | Leave a comment

Trading Technologies Int., Inc. (“TT”) v. IBG LLC et al. (US as intervenor)

Docket No. 2017-2257, -2621, 2018-1063 CBM Nos. 2015-00179, 2016-00051, 2016-00032 MOORE, MAYER, LINN April 18, 2019 Brief summary: Board finding that TT’s patents are CBM eligible (e.g., claims are not “for technological inventions”) and patent ineligible (§ 101) affirmed. Summary: … Continue reading

Posted in Patentability, Software | Leave a comment